Judgment:
Anil Dev Singh, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated January 9, 1995. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:
2. In the year 1985 the appellant, National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (for short 'NTPC Ltd'), awarded the contract for laying of transmission line for Korba Bhilai-II to respondent No.1, Hind Galvanizing and Engineering Company Ltd. (for short 'the HGEC Ltd'). On May 15, 1992, the HGEC Ltd. filed a petition for winding up of the appellant company for non-payment of a sum of Rs. 42,94,325/- which according to the former became due and payable to it by the latter under the contract.
3. While proceedings before the learned Company Judge were pending, the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd., the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited And the North-Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited (Acquisition And Transfer Of Power Transmission Systems) Ordinance, 1993, was promulgated. Subsequently the Ordinance was replaced by the National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited And the North-eastern electric power Corporation Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Power Transmission Systems) Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act'). Under the Ordinance and the Act, the power transmission systems were vested in t he Central Government and after they were so vested, the power transmission systems by a legal fiction were deemed to have been transferred and vested in the Power Grid Corporation of India (for short 'the PGCI')
4. After the Act came into force, the learned Single Judge by order dated 9th January, 1995 directed the Power Grid Corporation of India to be arrayed as a party respondent. It appears that this was done keeping in view the provisions of Section 4(3) of the Act, which provides that all suits, appeals and other proceedings of whatever nature pending against any of the three companies viz, the National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited and the North-eastern electric power Corporation Limited etc. shall not abate but shall continue against the PGCI. At the same time, the learned Single Judge declined to delete NTPC from the array of parties as he was of the view that the Court will be better assisted if the appellant herein remained on record as a party respondent. The appellant feeling aggrieved by the order of learned Company Judge to the extent that it was not deleted from the array of parties, has filed the instant appeal.
5. We do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. By the impugned order the learned Company Judge has not held the appellant to be responsible for the payment of the aforesaid amount to the PGCI nor any financial liability has been foisted on it. The question whether the appellant is liable to make payment to the respondent is yet to be determined by the learned Company Judge. The interests of the appellant are not prejudiced by the impugned order in any manner whatsoever. In case the PGCI's plea that it was not liable to discharge the liability incurred by the NTPC is accepted by the Company Judge, then in that event neither the PGCI nor the NTPC will be available to answer the pleas in the company petition, if the present plea of the appellant for being deleted from the array of parties is upheld.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. We order accordingly.